Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Jun 11, 2015 16:42:56 GMT
Have a look please at what this guy is doing. I must admit I envy his workmanship. This blade, sooner than later, would have been scrapped and the sabre taken apart for parts. One less Bavarian M1826. But is it still an M1826? I mean, there are questions about how far conservation should go? What about the temper? With all that heat and new steel something would change, wouldn't it? How many more like that float around that fetch top dollar? I know old gun barrels get the same treatment, but this is new for me. oldguns.blogspot.nl/2015/03/bavarian-cavalry-sword-m1826.htmlCheers.
|
|
|
Post by DigsFossils-n-Knives on Jun 11, 2015 17:19:41 GMT
This post makes for a good topic for discussion. What comes to mind are all the paintings currently in museums, all of them at some point are restored or will be restored, and older ones possibly restored more than once. The restoration process very simply put is 'painting right over them'. Albeit preformed by professionals and they're restored to their original or a near-original state. Yet this is common practice. I've heard this is sometimes done with historical katanas. www.ksky.ne.jp/~sumie99/patch1.jpgDepending where the damage is and how it's repaired could affect the temper of the blade. But blades could be in special cases re-hardened. Then again, if the historical blade is only for display then does the temper really matter? You would hope that the owner would admit if the blade was restored and to what extent is was restored, but if ownership is transferred a few times it's very likely that you'll never know if it was ever restored.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Jun 11, 2015 18:06:28 GMT
I can only base this on my knowledge and experience with firearms collecting. To do such a thing is generally highly frowned upon, even provided that when selling it is acknowledged to be restored. A restoration raises all kinds of red flags and the value goes down. Unlike, say automobile collecting, where restoration is not only acceptable but is preferred, the reverse is so with a firearm. I know of some pieces that were destined to be junked and parts sold that were skilfully restored and sold as such. In some cases I thought it for the best, but this is a sticky area. This man appears to be an artist at what he is doing. I must admit that I am unfamiliar with edged weapon collecting although what I had collected at one time were all military bayonets and military knives and I used the same criteria as I did with the firearms. If I even suspected tempering I would pass. What really upset me was to see someone take a piece of some value to a local gun shop and have it buffed and refinished to make it look new and shinny when all of the markings and corners were crisp and in some areas the finish was worn, tarnished, and only minor surface rust that could have been handled without a buffing wheel. I have no doubt this article will be argumentative.
|
|
|
Post by Krelian on Jun 11, 2015 18:59:12 GMT
Starts to remind me of Theseus' Ship / Theseus' Paradox which basically goes: Over time if you replace every part of a ship, is it still the same ship?
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Jun 11, 2015 19:48:03 GMT
Starts to remind me of Theseus' Ship / Theseus' Paradox which basically goes: Over time if you replace every part of a ship, is it still the same ship? This was my first thought. I've also heard an analogy, can't remember from where, regarding a familial axe. "This axe has been in my family for generations! It was my father's axe, and his father's axe. It's haft has broken and been replaced a few times, same for its head, but this is the same axe that's been passed down in my family for hundreds of years!" A paraphrase as I can't remember the original fully. That said, I think the distinction in this case is to be made between a tool that is still in active use versus an antique piece bring kept as such. I'm only aware of the Japanese preferring to restore their swords to like-new condition, and only in this case have I heard of the process increasing the value and desirability of the piece. I've always thought this was odd and I, personally, would love to see all my antique things (sword and otherwise) maintained at a like-new condition , but with some indication of the item's age. Where military patterns lose out on this, though, is the markings on the blade and furniture that identify the piece, it's origin, and age are often very shallow and one thorough polish would practically wipe them out. This particular sword was in absolutely horrific shape, but I don't think I agree with how they filled in the deep pits, with what looks like some kind of welding. Digs' already pointed out an example of an inlaid repair to a Japanese blade, but if memory serves, it was considered a negative point. Personally, the antique swords and knives I own, I would love to have polished and restored as new, so I could develop a better appreciation of what they looked like at their peak. I absolutely understand, however, that patina and other forms of (stable) oxidation are a large part of verifying the item's antique status. This is why, for instance, Japanese swords do not alter the nakago/tang, despite polishing everything else, and even changing mounts. A 900-year-old sword can have brand-new furniture and a brand-new polish, and generally look brand-new, but under the hilt (which is easily removed in these cases) tells a whole different story. If only there were some method by which other swords could be restored and maintained as such, as while I appreciate the value of a good patina, I'm not so keen on ragged lumps of vaguely-sword-shaped metal that all swords inevitably become without care. Active rust, I think, should be removed absolutely. Blackening of other heavy patina and/or pitting I'd like to think could be removed, but only so much steel is in one blade...
|
|
|
Post by Bertek on Jun 11, 2015 20:07:46 GMT
Nothing wrong with restoring a sword as long as you disclose it is restored when it is sold. Rather see stuff maintained and cared for than allowed to degrade and be discarded. After all only so much of this stuff exists, so it is good to see people maintain it in some shape or form, especially since making a proper fighting sword is basically a lost art. One would hope the least altering methods would be used. I just hope the guy in this example welded the blade while it was in cold wet sand.
I also wish people would have maintained a habit of oiling and preserving their weapons. I certainly wish the 'patina' crowd and their implicit endorsement of rust and decay would have never gained a following. I blame them, in part, for the deplorable shape many collectable weapons are in.
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Jun 11, 2015 21:19:50 GMT
I am glad so much people took the time to react. Thank you all very much and I hope more points of view will be posted here. It is difficult. Lower value swords will not get this treatment, only when an owner does it him self. It may be the high fliers that get the treatment as part of the course. Here it is a question of $$$$ invested and pay off. I would like to know the ins and outs of how it is done and would like to do my collection. And I would like to be able to detect it. On the other hand, they would not be antiques anymore in the sense of the values of the patina crowd. I side with Bertek here. Too much got lost by adhering to the values they laid on the collecting world. It is a left over from the 19th Century. Auction houses will tell you what was restored when you bid on antique furniture, if you ask for that info. As 75% of say a commode is restored, is it still 18th Century? But I never read about that in the case of high value guns or swords / sabres. There are so many angles here. And I see the temper and the flex of a blade as part of the blade construction. If this were to change I think it is not the same blade anymore. Or is this extreem thinking? Where is the line between an antique or a facsimile thereoff. As in Randoms katana. 900 years old, many restorations. What is left from that old blade what can be called the real one?
|
|
|
Post by DigsFossils-n-Knives on Jun 11, 2015 22:28:56 GMT
There is going to be a wide range of opinions here and I'd say there is no wrong or right. Except for the obvious that not disclosing the restoration is fraudulent. Or that it's best to leave things as they are and that restoring something should be left to the experts.
I'm sure that with certain items it is completely acceptable to completely restore (paintings) while some items are hardly restored. In museum collections, and I could be wrong, the very old swords which have been severely damaged by age and oxidation are not restored. While with dinosaur skeletons you have a completely different story. Most or all of the times the bones you see in open displays are not real bones. First it's rare to find a complete skeleton so some of the bones are "created" to take the place of those missing. And real bones are too heavy for displays. And to prevent deterioration the real bones are properly stored and resin casts are made for display.
I guess in short an assessment is made on a case-by-case basis. I think small defects add character and that a perfect item looks too new to be real.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Jun 12, 2015 3:06:37 GMT
Like it or not, that was some very impressive work, and the finished product looks fantastic.
I figure that they can do whatever they want with it, and its their business. So long as they do not engage in fraudulent practices, all is well.
Personally, I am on the fence. At the end of the day, a sword, or any other artifact is an ambassador from another time and place. If it has degraded to the point where it can no longer fulfill that role, then I see no reason to restore it back to the point where it can once again do so.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Jun 12, 2015 17:20:09 GMT
I'm on the side of professional refurbishment. Considering what he had to work with when he started this is a miracle reconstitution of a ruined historical piece. I'd give him 1200.00 for it; as long as the picture history he documented came along with it.
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Jun 12, 2015 18:54:51 GMT
Too bad the site is Russian (?). Paging Luka, yoohoo.. I would like to talk with him very much. I like the idea to have some documentation about work done.
|
|
|
Post by sonofarwyn on Jun 23, 2015 22:11:04 GMT
Its an interesting subject. I get both sides. I collect old military rifles, and as mentioned before, the value goes down markedly if they were modified or refurbished.
That being said, firearms are not quite where antique swords are yet. A 100 year old rifle, well maintained, is still a perfectly functional firearm. I own a few, and all are safe to shoot, and have been shot. I have also had a couple of historical rifles pass through my hands that I would not have shot under any condition. Late war Japanese Type 99 rifles, for example, and incredibly poor machining, and even worse heat treatment. Most are considered unsafe to shoot. Ditto late ware Nambu pistols.
In the case of military aircraft however, the ONLY thing that matters on if the aircraft is "authentic" or not is the planes data plate. As long as the original data plate is there, the plane is "original" even if 99% of the plane has been replaced through operational usage. The flip side is that, a plane that lacks one, is nearly worthless, no matter the provenance. A plane with original data and engine plates, that still match, are worth big bucks to collectors.
My personal take, is if the object (the sword) was meant to be used, and is maintained as such, while keeping historical markings and other provenance, that why would you not? This is by and large what the Japanese market does. Keeping the sword in polish and maintained insures that your 400 year old sword makes it to another century.
In the case of the example sabre, its a masterful job, but should absolutely be disclosed as a refurb. The restoration of metal in particular, would be a huge issue for collectability purposes.
A similar sword, in better shape that was just polished up? I think that should be allowable/ideal, just to insure that the sword makes it longer. Just like katana.
Once again, just my opinion. I love seeing the historical swords, and the thing that always blew me away with the bronze age is that you could see a sword come out of the ground that was last held by another man a millennia ago. Mind blowing. And it looks like a functional sword. The Chinese have bronze swords they have pulled out of the ground at the tomb of the first emperor that look new. That is incredible! Who would not want to collect something like that?
|
|
Luka
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,848
|
Post by Luka on Jun 23, 2015 22:48:07 GMT
Too bad the site is Russian (?). Paging Luka, yoohoo.. I would like to talk with him very much. I like the idea to have some documentation about work done. I don't know any russian, or cyrillic letters unfortunately. :/
|
|
|
Post by S. Thomas on Sept 18, 2015 7:54:31 GMT
I do; Cyrillic letters, that is. Taught myself out of a brochure for travellers/ tourists going to the Soviet Union which I picked up at Helsinki airport when I was twelve or thirteen. I no longer have that brochure. I replaced it as a learning aid with a pocket Russian-English-Russian dictionary when I was fourteen. The `whatchamacallit page` `data page` had a reference to...get this... "Soviet Orthography". There are so many directions one could run off in with that one...
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Sept 19, 2015 5:01:29 GMT
Thanks for trying anyway.
Cheers.
|
|